County Government of Kirinyaga & another v Njagi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2428 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed Kirinyaga County must pay its former Deputy Governor KShs 5.7 million because SRC housing circulars bind county governments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Appellant was bound by the SRC's advise to provide the Respondent with oficial residence or a leased one
- 2.Whether the failure by the Appellant to provide housing benefit to the Respondent entitled him to payment of Kshs.90,000= per month
- 3.Whether the award of Kshs.5,700,000= by the trial court should stand
Key legal issues
#Whether the SRC circulars on housing benefit for Deputy Governors were binding on the county government
The circulars were legally binding, not mere suggestions; payment contrary to them is null and void
The court traced the jurisprudence from TSC v KNUT (Court of Appeal) holding that SRC advice under Article 230(4)(b) binds national and county governments. Since the circulars dated 25th August 2017 and 20th May 2019 advised provision of an official residence or a leased house capped at Kshs.90,000 per month, the Appellant was bound. The allegation that the gross salary included housing was contrary to the binding advice and thus null and void.
Whether failure to provide housing benefit entitled the Respondent to Kshs.90,000 per month
Yes - failure to exercise either option entitled the Respondent to monetary compensation equal to the monthly rent cap
The Appellant had two options: allocate an official residence or a leased house with rent capped at Kshs.90,000 per month. It did neither for the entire 60-month term. Following Council of Governors v SRC and Hillary Chongwony v County Government of Bungoma, where Keli J held a Deputy Governor entitled to Kshs.90,000 per month over the term of office, the court found the Respondent entitled to the monetary equivalent of the housing benefit.
Whether the trial court's award of Kshs.5,700,000 should stand
The award was grounded on binding circulars, binding precedents and straightforward evidence; it must stand
Applying Butt v Khan, an appellate court will not disturb an award unless it is inordinately high or low or founded on wrong principles or misapprehension of evidence. The trial court's award of 60 months at Kshs.90,000 was based on the SRC circulars and binding precedent, supported by straightforward evidence, so there was no basis for interference.
Legal principles established
#- SRC advice under Article 230(4)(b) on remuneration and benefits of state/public officers is binding on national and county governments
- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is inordinately high or low or the judge proceeded on wrong principles
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs
- 2.Trial court's award of Kshs.5,700,000= housing benefit to the Respondent to stand
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (trial court)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the trial magistrate's court to the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the trial court's judgment of 15th October 2024
The court found the appeal had no merit; the SRC circulars were binding and the award was supported by the evidence
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs (costs awarded to the Respondent)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly, I find that Circulars by the SRC on the Housing Benefits for the State Oficers in Counties and Deputy Governors dated 25th August 2017 and 20th May 2019 were not mere suggestions or recommendations to the Appellant but they were legally binding on it.
The failure to exercise the above two options entitled the Respondent to compensation equaling to the monthly rent of Kshs.90,000= advised by the SRC.
I have found that the award of Kshs.5,700,000 to the Respondent by the trial court was supported by the evidence on record and it must stand. Consequently, I find no merits in the Appeal and dismiss it with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates of the SRC circular extending the leasing deadline
Typographical inconsistencies: circular dated 20th May 2019 referenced elsewhere as '20th May 2029' and 25th August 2017 circular elsewhere cited as 'dated 25th August 2017 [Page 55 of the Record]' with differing circular reference numbers
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kirinyaga & another v Njagi (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2428 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 5th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2428/eng@2025-09-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.